Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting

被引:0
|
作者
White J. [1 ]
Shenoy B.V. [1 ]
Tutrone R.F. [2 ]
Karsh L.I. [3 ]
Saltzstein D.R. [4 ]
Harmon W.J. [4 ]
Broyles D.L. [5 ]
Roddy T.E. [5 ]
Lofaro L.R. [5 ]
Paoli C.J. [6 ]
Denham D. [6 ]
Reynolds M.A. [5 ]
机构
[1] Carolina Urology Partners, Huntersville, NC
[2] Chesapeake Urology Associates, Towson, MD
[3] Urology Center of Colorado, Denver, CO
[4] Urology San Antonio, P.A., San Antonio, TX
[5] Beckman Coulter, Carlsbad, CA
[6] Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA
关键词
D O I
10.1038/s41391-017-0008-7
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Deciding when to biopsy a man with non-suspicious DRE findings and tPSA in the 4-10 ng/ml range can be challenging, because two-thirds of such biopsies are typically found to be benign. The Prostate Health Index (phi) exhibits significantly improved diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer detection when compared to tPSA and %fPSA, however only one published study to date has investigated its impact on biopsy decisions in clinical practice. Methods: An IRB approved observational study was conducted at four large urology group practices using a physician reported two-part questionnaire. Physician recommendations were recorded before and after receiving the phi test result. A historical control group was queried from each site's electronic medical records for eligible men who were seen by the same participating urologists prior to the implementation of the phi test in their practice. 506 men receiving a phi test were prospectively enrolled and 683 men were identified for the historical control group (without phi). Biopsy and pathological findings were also recorded for both groups. Results: Men receiving a phi test showed a significant reduction in biopsy procedures performed when compared to the historical control group (36.4% vs. 60.3%, respectively, P < 0.0001). Based on questionnaire responses, the phi score impacted the physician's patient management plan in 73% of cases, including biopsy deferrals when the phi score was low, and decisions to perform biopsies when the phi score indicated an intermediate or high probability of prostate cancer (phi ≥36). Conclusions: phi testing significantly impacted the physician's biopsy decision for men with tPSA in the 4-10 ng/ml range and non-suspicious DRE findings. Appropriate utilization of phi resulted in a significant reduction in biopsy procedures performed compared to historical patients seen by the same participating urologists who would have met enrollment eligibility but did not receive a phi test. © 2017 The Author(s).
引用
收藏
页码:78 / 84
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting
    White, Jay
    Shenoy, B. Vittal
    Tutrone, Ronald F.
    Karsh, Lawrence I.
    Saltzstein, Daniel R.
    Harmon, William J.
    Broyles, Dennis L.
    Roddy, Tamra E.
    Lofaro, Lori R.
    Paoli, Carly J.
    Denham, Dwight
    Reynolds, Mark A.
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2018, 21 (01) : 78 - 84
  • [2] Reply to 'Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting'
    Ehdaie, Behfar
    Carlsson, Sigrid
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2018, 21 (03) : 446 - 447
  • [3] Reply to ‘Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting’
    Behfar Ehdaie
    Sigrid Carlsson
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2018, 21 : 446 - 447
  • [4] Reply to Letter to the Editor re: 'Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting'
    White, Jay
    Tutrone, Ronald F.
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2018, 21 (04) : 604 - 604
  • [5] Reply to Letter to the Editor re: ‘Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting’
    Jay White
    Ronald F. Tutrone
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2018, 21 : 604 - 604
  • [6] Second Reply to Letter to the Editor re: "Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting"
    White, Jay
    Tutrone, Ronald F.
    Reynolds, Mark A.
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2019, 22 (04) : 639 - 640
  • [7] Second Reply to Letter to the Editor re: “Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting”
    Jay White
    Ronald F. Tutrone
    Mark A. Reynolds
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2019, 22 : 639 - 640
  • [8] Diagnostic performance of prostate health index (PHI) in predicting prostate cancer on prostate biopsy
    Othman, Hanita
    Abu Yamin, Azzah Hana
    Isa, Nurismah M. D.
    Bahadzor, Badrulhisham
    Zakaria, Syed Zulkifli Syed
    MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 2020, 42 (02) : 209 - 214
  • [9] CLINICAL UTILITY OF CONFIRMMDX FOR PROSTATE CANCER IN A COMMUNITY UROLOGY PRACTICE
    Yonover, Paul
    Steyaert, Sandra
    Cohen, Justin
    Ruiz, Celeste
    Grafczynska, Karolina
    Garcia, Elizabeth
    DeHart, Jessica
    Brawer, Michael
    Groskopf, Jack
    Van Criekinge, Wim
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 201 (04): : E334 - E334
  • [10] PROSTATE HEALTH INDEX (PHI): USEFULNESS IN BIOPSY-NAIVE PATIENTS
    Fernandez, Ester
    Dominguez, Mario
    Calleja, Paola
    Ramos, Enrique
    Varea, Raquel
    Alonso, Eneko
    Herrero, Ernesto
    Velilla, Guillermo
    Campos, Felix
    Ballestero, Roberto
    Azueta, Ainara
    Lastra, Pedro
    Fernandez, Alejandro
    Zubillaga, Sergio
    Luis Gutierrez, Jose
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 : E1099 - E1100